IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22128 of 2010(M)
1. CHAURIYAL T.V, AGED 39
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 22128 OF 2010 (M)
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner made an application for compassionate
appointment. By Ext.P1 judgment, the 1st respondent was directed
to consider the application. It would appear that since the
petitioner was a married son of the deceased, in terms of the
Rules governing such appointments, the petitioner ought to have
produced dependency certificate from the Tahsildar, which the
petitioner did not produce. While the matter was thus pending,
the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition before this Court
complaining of non compliance of the directions in Ext.P1
judgment in WP(C) No.5463/10. When this petition was
considered, this Court wanted the respondent to finalise the
proceedings on the application. In compliance with the above,
respondent has now passed Ext.P5 stating that under the Rules,
the petitioner ought to have produced dependency certificate and
as the petitioner did not produce the same, the application is
rejected.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
WPC No. 22128/10
:2 :
themselves had addressed the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar had
issued Ext.P3 dependency certificate. According to the petitioner,
now that the Tahsildar has issued Ext.P3 certificate, his
application needs to be reconsidered.
3. A reading of Ext.P5, the impugned order shows that it
was issued on 3/7/2010. The dependency certificate Ext.P3 was
issued by the Tahsildar only on 6/7/2010. The reason for rejecting
the petitioner’s claim is non production of the dependency
certificate.
4. Although according to the counsel Ext.P3 has already
been produced before the 1st respondent, now that Ext.P5 order
has been issued, it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh
representation producing Ext.P3 certificate, the application of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment, which is rejected by
Ext.P5 will be reconsidered and fresh orders will be passed duly
adverting to the certificate also. Orders as above shall be passed
at any rate within two months of receipt of a representation in the
manner as directed above.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp